Chitambaresh, J.

1. “What you leave at your death, let it be without controversy, else the lawyers will be your heirs” –

said F. Osborn to his son.

2. The father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant (by name P.I. Varghese) executed Ext.A1 Will dated 3.7.2007 Where under he bequeathed his property to all his children and provided a life estate to his wife the second defendant. Ext.A1 Will inter alia provided that the plaint schedule property would devolve on the first defendant absolutely with power of disposal and would go to the plaintiffs if the first defendant died without any issues. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant has divorced his wife and has no children and therefore the property should revert to them absolutely as per Ext.A1 Will. The plaintiffs contend that the first defendant and the second defendant had no authority to execute Ext.A4 sale deed to the third defendant which is to be declared as null and void. It is on this premise have the plaintiffs sought for recovery of possession of the property to their estate and for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against further alienation.

3. The defendants contend that the subsequent disposition of the very same property to the plaintiffs under the same Will has to be treated as invalid and the effect is that Ext.A1 Will is valid without the invalid conditions. The defendants assert that they have an unfettered right to sell a portion of the property bequeathed to them by Ext.A4 sale deed which cannot be called in question. They also point out that the second defendant who is the holder of life interest has joined in Ext.A4 sale deed and therefore a valid title has been conveyed to the third defendant. The suit has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and the plaintiffs have filed this appeal reiterating that the court below erred in construing the terms of Ext.A1 Will.

4. We heard Mr G.Keerthivas, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs and Mrs. Zohra, Advocate for the first respondent/first defendant and Mr Bechu Kurian Thomas, Senior Advocate for the third respondent/third defendant in this regular first appeal.

5. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramkishorelal and another v. Kamalnarayan (AIR 1963 SC 890) has observed as follows:

“A familiar instance of this is where in an earlier part of the document some property is given absolutely to one person but later on, other directions about the same property are given which conflict with and take away from the absolute title given in the earlier portion. What is to be done where this happens? It is well settled that in case of such a conflict the earlier disposition of absolute title should prevail and the later directions of disposition should be disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to restrict the title already given.” (emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court adopted the same view in Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kantham [(2010) 13 SCC 147] and in Mauleshwar Mani and others v. Jagdish Prasad and others (AIR 2002 SC 727). It was held in the latter decision as follows:

“10. From the decisions referred to above, the legal principle that emerges, inter alia, are:

(i). where under a Will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife, any subsequent bequeath which is repugnant to the first bequeath would be invalid; and

(ii). where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the property after the death of his wife in the same Will.”

(emphasis supplied)

The above principles have been quoted with approval in Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta [(2016) 10 SCC 805] which shall be called in aid to construe Ext.A1 Will and understand the dispositions therein.

6. A reading of Ext.A1 Will leaves no doubt that there is an absolute bequest of the property in favour of the first defendant who has been given an unfettered right to encumber or alienate the property. The sam